Kern Masonry Construction, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 18, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 496 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kern Masonry Construction, Inc. and Paul W. Poling
and Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers' Interna-
tional Union of. America, Local No. 8, AFL-CIO.
Case 6-CA-8780
October 18, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On June 30, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
James M. Fitzpatrick issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief; the General Counsel
filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, except
as modified herein,' and to adopt his recommended
Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Kern Masonry Con-
struction, Inc., Dayton, Ohio, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order.
1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, inc., 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
2 We find it unnecessary to reach the alleged 8 (a)(3) violation because the
same remedy is afforded by our affirmance of the 8(a)(l) violation
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Law Judge: The
issue in this case is the employer's motive in discharging a
bricklayer. As set out below, I find he was fired because of
his concerted and union activities.
The case arises from unfair labor practice charges jointly
filed by Paul W. Poling (the bricklayer who was'fired) and
his Union, Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers' Interna-
tional Union of America, Local No. 8, AFL-CIO (the
Union), against Kern Masonry Construction, Inc. (the Re-
spondent), on November 10, 1975,' and amended charges
filed on January 23, 1976. A complaint based on the origi-
nal charges issued on January 13, 1976, and was amended
at the hearing to include the amended charges. The com-
plaint alleges that Respondent, having employed Poling,
discharged him because he engaged in protected concerted
activities and in order to discourage membership in the
Union. Respondent answered, admitting jurisdictional alle-
gations, the employment of Poling, and the fact of his dis-
charge on October 10, but denying allegations of unlawful
motive in the discharge. The issues were heard before me at
Clarksburg, West Virginia, on April 1, 1976.
Based on the entire record, including my observation of
the witnesses, the arguments of counsel at the hearing, and
the helpful briefs filed by the General Counsel and Re-
spondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED
Respondent, an Ohio corporation with its principal of-
fices at Dayton, Ohio, is a masonry contractor in the con-
struction industry. During the 12 months preceding is-
suance of the complaint, Respondent in the course of its
business received goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside Ohio for use within
Ohio. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
Respondent is the masonry subcontractor in the con-
struction of an extensive addition to the United Hospital
Center at Clarksburg, West Virginia. Its superintendent for
the project is Al York. Respondent began work on the job
in June at which time it hired a crew of bricklayers includ-
ing Poling. Respondent also employed a bricklayer fore-
man to oversee the work. In early August, this original
foreman left the job and Respondent hired Richard Good-
win as a replacement bricklayer foreman.
The bricklayer foreman oversees the masonry work and
has the authority to hire and fire bricklayers. He, in turn, is
answerable to the project superintendent. I find that both
Goodwin and York are agents of Respondent and supervi-
sors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
Respondent is a union contractor in that it operates un-
der union conditions, employing only union labor on the
Clarksburg job.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union (Local 8), of which Poling is a member, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act. It has a collective-bargaining agreement with the
Construction Employers Association of North Central
' All dates herein are in 1975 unless otherwise indicated.
226 NLRB No. 73
KERN MASONRY CONSTRUCTION, INC.
West Virginia , Inc., governing the terms and conditions of -
employment of union bricklayers in a six county area in-
cluding Clarksburg . Respondent is not a member of that
association, but, on June 18 , in connection with its
Clarksburg job, it entered into a short-form agreement with
Local 8 and has continued to operate according to the
terms of the underlying collective-bargaining agreement.
Subsequently Local 8 merged with three other bricklayer
locals, including Local 12 in Morgantown, West Virginia,
to form a new local, No. 15. This merger has not, however,
altered the applicable collective -bargaining agreement.
In manning its Clarksburg job, Respondent has em-
ployed members of former Locals 8 and 12 for masonry
work as well as members of the laborers ' and the operating
engineers unions for other work.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Employment of Paul Poling
As indicated above, Poling was hired about the time the
Clarksburg job began in June. He was the third journey-
man bricklayer hired on the job. He continued working
without interruption until October 10 when he was fired by
Goodwin, the bricklayer foreman.
B. The Union Activity of Poling
In addition to being a member of the Union , Poling, in
his capacity as a member of the arbitration board of Local
8, was also a signatory on its behalf to the underlying col-
lective-bargaining agreement. The functions of the arbitra-
tion board include , among other things, the negotiating
and signing of collective-bargaining agreements and also
participation in certain aspects of the grievance procedure
provided in the agreement.
The Union's regular job steward on the Clarksburg job
was John Post. However, during the first 2 weeks of Au-
gust, while he was off because of an injury, Poling func-
tioned as acting j ob steward.
Respondent admittedly knew that Poling was the acting
steward. I find also that Respondent had knowledge he
was a member of Local 8's arbitration board because the
evidence shows it had available copies of the underlying
collective-bargaining agreement carrying his signature.
C. The Complaints of Poling
Poling was a chronic complainer about working condi-
tions on the job . During his, 2 weeks as acting job steward
in August, he presented two oral grievances . One, present-
ed to Project Superintendent York, was a claim for addi-
tional pay provided under the collective-bargaining agree-
ment for employees operating the bricksaw. The other,
presented to Foreman Goodwin, was a claim for payment
to two employees of 2 hours ' showup time on the occasion
of an equipment breakdown . This claim also was based on
provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement. Both
grievances were satisfactorily resolved at the initial stage.
In addition to these formal grievances made in his ca-
pacity as acting job steward, Poling, as an ordinary em-
497
ployee, made numerous other complaints . Particularly af-
ter August, by which time the bricklaying work was being
performed at substantial elevations above ground , Poling
complained three or four times a week , and sometimes
three or four times a day, to Job Steward Post. These most-
ly involved the safety of the scaffolding, the lack of safe
ladders for mounting the scaffolds, and the lack of drink-
ing water. Ladders were not used by all the bricklayers
because the younger men simply climbed up the supports.
But some of the middle-aged men , including Poling, had
difficulty mounting the scaffolds without benefit of ade-
quate ladders as required by the collective-bargaining
agreement.
Of the numerous complaints brought to him by Poling,
Post took only a few to Foreman Goodwin. The complaint
regarding ladders was one of these . The fact that he did not
take many of the other complaints to Goodwin is not a
basis for inferring that they all lacked merit or that Post
considered them without merit, because many were cor-
rected by workmen, particularly laborers, on Post's instiga-
tion without resort to management.
On three occasions Poling complained directly to Good-
win. Sometime in August he complained about the brick-
saw being placed so as to blow dust in his face. Goodwin
adjusted the matter . Sometime in September , he personally
complained to the foreman about the lack of a ladder to
climb the scaffold. Goodwin offered to find him one.2 On
another occasion in September , Poling accidentally fell
through the space between the scaffold and the wall. He
suffered no substantial personal injury because he caught
himself on the newly fabricated wall resulting in damage to
it. During the lunchbreak Poling complained to Goodwin
that the scaffold was not only too far from the wall, but
lacked toeboards, conditions covered in the collective-bar-
gaining agreement. Apparently, Goodwin did not adjust
this grievance but simply grinned and walked away. This
incident was symptomatic of a chronic safety problem on
the job . Scaffolds which were not close enough to the wall
were a frequent occurrence . On many occasions the prob-
lem was adjusted through the job steward by having the
laborers wire the scaffolds closer to the wall at window
locations. The absence of toeboards also was a frequent
condition.
Poling did not confine his complaining to the job stew-
ard and the foreman . He also complained constantly to his
fellow employees in a loud and strident voice about alleged
unsafe working conditions on the job. He did this while
working as well as during breaks. I find Goodwin knew of
his persistent complaining. I draw this inference because
the foreman daily toured the job, because during part of
the time involved he ate lunch with the bricklayers, and
because of remarks he made shortly before and at the time
he discharged Poling.
In this latter connection , about a week before he fired
Poling, Goodwin observed laborer Denver Rowan, while
he was searching for a ladder at the request of Poling.
2 It is not clear in the record whether that particular incident was satisfac-
tonly resolved It is clear from the record as a whole that 'the general prob-
lem of inadequate ladders remained throughout Polmg's employment and
was a constant source of complaint.
498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Goodwin asked him what he was doing. When Rowan re-
plied he. was looking for a ladder, Goodwin commented,'
"What's the matter, is Pat bitching again." Pat is a nick-
name of Pohng. - .
On October 9, the day before the discharge, Goodwin
directed Rowan to tell Poling of a work reassignment. Pol-
ing took exception to the assignment because he would be
working alone. Although it was customary for a foreman to
send such messages to a bricklayer through a laborer, Pol-
ing, angered by the assignment, vented his rath on Rowan.
Rowan, himself angered by Poling's reaction, complained
to Goodwin that Poling had gotten hot at him, that it was
not Rowan's job to tell a bricklayer what to do and then be
hollered at. On hearing this Goodwin told him he would
not have to worry about it anymore.
Poling on his part grieved this particular work assign-
ment through Post who took it to Goodwin. The burden of
the grievance was that Goodwin usually had two men
working on a panel wall and on this occasion he had sepa-
rated Poling and another bricklayer he frequently worked
with so that each would be working on a separate panel
wall instead of together. When Post related the grievance
to Goodwin, he replied, "I ain't going to put up with that."
He thus rejected the grievance.
D. The Discharge
On October 10, Goodwin fired Poling. He first informed
Job Steward Post in the presence of laborer Rowan and an
unidentified electrician that, "I'm going to let Pat go." Post
asked him why and,, according to Post, Goodwin stated,
"Well, I'm just not satisfied with him, and he's not satisfied
with me." Post then asked if it was Poling's work and
Goodwin replied, "No, it is not his work:" He added, "I
just got to let him go." Post said he wished Goodwin would
not. This apparently had no effect.
Rowan corroborates Post. He recalls that when Post
asked Goodwin why the was laying Poling off, Goodwin
said, "Well, I'm not satisfied with him and he's not satis-
fied with' me, we just don't get along." He -further recalled
that Post asked if it was Poling's work and Goodwin re-
plied, "No, it is not his work, we just don't get along."
Goodwin himself substantially corroborates Post and
Rowan. According to him the conversation with Post went
as follows:
I said, "John, I'm gonna have to let Pat go." And, he
said, "Oh, my God, he's gonna raise hell." He said
why? I said, "I don't feel that I'm satisfied with his
production, and I don't feel that he's satisfied with
me." He said, "Can't you give him a chance?" I said,
"No, I've put it off too long-now."
Goodwin's version varies from that of Post and Rowan
in that he testified he indicated dissatisfaction with Poling's
production. On this conflict I credit Post and Rowan rath-
er than Goodwin because they corroborate each other.
After talking with Post, Goodwin called Poling down
from the scaffold, telling him to bring his tools. Poling's
version of their resulting conversation, which I credit, is as
follows:
I was working on the fifth floor, I believe.- He said
bring your tools downstairs. So, I brought my tools
downstairs. It was around 2:45. I said, "where do you
want me to go, down on the blocks?" And, he said,
"No, I'm laying you off." I said, "Laying me off?" I
said, "Man, I was the third man hired on this job." I
said, "why 'are you laying me off?" He said, "You
don't please me." And, I said, "I don't please you? In
what respect don't I please you?" "Well," he said, "I
don't like you and you don't like me." And, I said,
"Man that's no reason to lay a man off." I said, "Is my
work satisfactory?" He said, "Yes, it was." I said, "Do
I get enough in the wall, do I lay enough material?"
He said, "Yes, you'do." I said, "Does Al York know
about this?" And, he said, "No." He shook his head
no. I said, "Well, I'll see about this." I was hot, and I
said, "I have a notion to smack you in the mouth." I
said, "I'm going down and see John Post."
Goodwin's version differs somewhat. He testified:
I told him I was going to let him go, and he said, why.
And, I said, "I'm not satisfied with you and I don't
feel you're satisfied with me." And he said, "Is it my
work?" And, I said, "No, not the quality of your
work." And, before I could tell him I didn't think he
was laying enough material, he flew into a rage... .
He said, "You're not going to pull the same shit on me
you pulled on Jerry. I'm going down and talk to John
about this," he said. He said, "I might hit'you-in the
mouth."
As, indicated above, I credit the version of Poling. It is a
fuller version and, considering the personalities of the two
witnesses as revealed at the hearing, it seems more likely
that Poling would have been more voluble, as his version
indicates. But even if Goodwin's version is credited, he in
fact said nothing to Poling about unsatisfactory quantity of
work performed, which is the reason now asserted by Re-
spondent for the discharge.
In the testimony regarding the conversation at the termi-
nation of Poling, the word "layoff" is sometimes used. This
is to be understood, however, as meaning discharge. There
is no dispute that Poling was discharged on October 10.
The complaint alleges, and the 'answer admits, that he was
"terminated" on that date.
E. Respondent's Defense
The asserted defense Iis that Poling was discharged for
incompetence in that he did not do enough work although
what he did was of adequate quality. The record indicates
some basis for dissatisfaction with his work but I find that
that was not the dominant reason for discharge. '
Goodwin came on the job as bricklayer foreman in the
first week of August. According to York, who was on the
job about 2 days out of every 2 weeks, he and Goodwin in
the weeks that followed (about a 2-week period according
to York and a period from 4 to, 6 weeks according to Good-
win) discussed all the bricklayers on the job. Goodwin
raised questions about the competence of three, Jerry Zim-
merman, Louie Marra, and Poling. Goodwin told York,
KERN MASONRY CONSTRUCTION, INC
"that he felt that Mr. Poling was not giving a day's work,
he felt that he wasn't doing the work that he was capable of
doing, or what he was being paid to do...." York told
Goodwin that it was his discretion to'dismiss the man if he
wasn't doing his job. However, Poling was not discharged
at that time.
Zimmerman, on the other hand, was fired "probably
sometime in September" because. he was unreasonable to
the degree of not wanting to do the work and because he
had a drinking problem and would show up irregularly.
According to Goodwin, he was incompetent. Marra also
was slated for discharge, but that proved unnecessary be-
cause he thereafter failed to appear for work. The specific
reasons for the plan to terminate him are not explained in
the record.
Nothing was said then or later to Poling about dissatis-
faction with his work. Yet at the hearing Goodwin gave a
detailed exposition of his deficiencies including sitting
down on the job, endeavoring to pick his place to work
(which Goodwin considered the foreman's prerogative),
and his desire to not work alone. Goodwin claimed that
because of these deficiences Poling was not putting enough
material in the wall.
With all of this there is no evidence that, at the time it
was planned to terminate Zimmerman and Marra, there
were any plans to terminate Poling. At most his perfor-
mance was being questioned. In fact, he was not terminat-
ed. He was kept on until October 10, when he was let go
without warning. There is no evidence that his quantity of
work performed varied in any significant degree through-
out his employment on the job. It is difficult to understand
why, if Respondent throughout the summer, and Goodwin
since the first of August, had put up with his performance,
it suddenly became necessary on October 10 to fire him for
that reason.
On the other hand, the evidence is persuasive that Good-
win was reacting to Poling's persistent "bitching." The to-
tality of his complaining included- not dust the grievances
processed while he was acting steward but also those he
took directly to Goodwin and those he took to Post. Al-
though only a few of the latter were carried further to
Goodwin, I cannot believe that the foreman was unaware
of his constant complaining to the steward. Similarly, I
think the record-warrants-the inference that he was aware
of the daily complaining to fellow employees about safety
conditions on the job. All of the complaints dealt with one
or another working condition covered by the collective-
bargaining-agreement. Whether Poling's position was right
or wrong under the contract, his -arguments in each in-
stance were arguably within the contractual provisions de-
signed to protect the working men. His pressing of these
complaints was union and protected concerted activity. Pa-
cific Maritime Association, 192 NLRB 338 (1971); Standard
Aggregate Corp., 213 NLRB 154 (1974); Dakota Electric
Association, 201 NLRB 302 (1973).
Goodwin claimed! that Poling at times sat down on the
job. Yet at least some of the instances of sitting admittedly
were the result of the absence of a ladder. The contract
requires that adequate ladders be provided. Although the
agreement gives the employer the prerogatives of manage-
ment, it also establishes many work rules which arguably
499
could bear on a work assignment. Goodwin testified that
he felt a bricklayer should work where the foreman tells
him to work. But there is no evidence whatsoever indicat-
ing that Poling ever refused to work where. he was told to
work. The most he did was to show his anger to a fellow
employee (Rowan) and to raise the issue with management
by grieving through his job steward. His right to grieve is a
right underwritten not only by the collective-bargaining
agreement, but by the Act as well.
In sum, there is strong evidence warranting the inference
that it was Poling's persistent pressing for rights which he
deemed were insured by the contract which tipped the
scale in Goodwin's mind and which by October 9 con-
vinced him he should terminate Poling. He carried out his
decision the next day. I find that the separation of Poling
for these reasons was in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act. -
The General Counsel also asserts that- Poling's union
membership, his position in the arbitration board, and his
2-week tenure as acting job steward, together with the
other evidence in the case, warrant a finding that his union
activity generally motivated the discharge. I find that the
evidence does not warrant a finding on that theory. There
is no evidence of umon- animus. The employer generally
operates as a union employer and generally has-good rela-
tions with the Charging Union in this case. Goodwin -him-
self is a union member and has held positions on the arbi-
tration board of his own local. Nothing in his conduct
indicates an antiunion attitude as such. What his conduct
does indicate is an antipathy to a loud mouth such as Pol-
ing who was constantly waving the contract and who
grieved at the drop of a hat.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close , intimate, and sub-
stantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free now of
commerce . They are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and ( 1) and 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act and discriminated with respect to employee hire
and tenure of employment and the terms and conditions of
employment, thereby discouraging membership in a labor
oragnization and committing unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by termi-
500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nating the employment of Paul Poling on October 10, 1975,
and by not reinstating him thereafter.
,4. The unfair labor practices found above affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of th e
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act. I recommend that Respondent be ordered
to offer Paul Poling immediate and full reinstatement to
his former position or, if that position is not available, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other benefits and privileges, and that he be
made whole for loss of earnings suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him by paying him a sum of money
equal to that which he would have earned from October 10,
1975, the date of- his termination, to the date Respondent
offers him reinstatement, less his net earnings during such
period, backpay to be computed in the manner'set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with in-
terest thereon at 6 percent per annum calculated according
to the formula set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962). I further recommend that Respondent
be required to preserve and upon request, make available
to Board agents, upon request, all pertinent records and
data, necessary in analyzing and determining whatever
backpay maybe due. I further recommend that Respon-
dent post appropriate notices at its jobsites within the terri-
torial jurisdiction of Bricklayers' Local 15.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:
ORDERS
or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act as modified by the Labor Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request offer to Paul Poling immediate and
full reinstatement to his former position or, if that position
is not available, to a substantially equivalent position, with-
out prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings in the' manner set
forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents all records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms thereof.
(c) Post at its jobsites within the territorial jurisdiction
of Bricklayers Local 15, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being
duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places at each of its jobsites within the territorial
jurisdiction of Bricklayers Local 15, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps- shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been' taken to comply herewith.
4 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment, of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
The Respondent, Kern Masonry Construction, Inc.,
Dayton, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Terminating or otherwise discriminating against em-
ployees because they engage in union or protected concert-
ed activity.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the right
to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers' International
Union of America, Local No. 15, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing and to engage in concert-
ed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or mu-
tual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the, Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides had a chance to give
evidence , the National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act, and has
ordered us to post this notice.
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join , or , help unions
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection ,
To process grievances through a union job stew-
ard
To urge compliance with terms of a collective-
bargaining agreement, including provisions cover-
ing working conditions on a jobsite
KERN MASONRY CONSTRUCTION, INC.
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing
To refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with, re-
strains, or coerces employees with respect to these
rights.
501
WE WILL NOT terminate or otherwise discriminate
against employees because they engage in union activ-
ity or other protected concerted activity.
WE WILL give Paul Poling his old job and pay him
for earnings lost because of the discrimination against
him.
KERN MASONRY CONSTRUCTION, INC.